I think they meant requiring industry-leading companies to apply freedom of speech on their platforms. That is, no censoring of comments, videos, reviews, etc. as long as they don't violate the law.
So the idea is to "require freedom of speech to apply" by prohibiting corporations from setting their own terms of service, spam policies, etc? That sounds like a very serious restraint of speech.
The government cannot compel speech. I don't think that using the power of the government to require some types of speech against the wishes of private entities solves the problem you think it's solving...
